CR-3937-20 IN THE HIG 207 Ashok Gupta M/s SAS Int CORAM: H Present: - NIDHI GUP 1. against the j Appellate respondent passed by th 2. issued in the dated 18.08. Predecessor of the petitio revision pet order dated Predecessor counsel for hearing, foll Court:- 2010 (O&M) -1- E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA CR-39 Date o Gupta Versus AS International M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH None. I GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner/landlord has file t the judgment of reversal dated 18.1 late Authority, Faridabad whereby dent-tenant was allowed; and the by the learned Rent Controller, Farida The matter pertains to the year in the same. Perusal of the order–she 18.08.2010 the present petition was essor Bench of this Court, on account petitioner. Subsequently, vide order d n petition was restored to its origin dated 18.05.2011, the matter was essor Bench, due to repeated request el for the petitioner. On 25.08.2025, g, following order has been passed b ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 3937-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.04.2026 .… Appellants .... Respondent NIDHI GUPTA as filed the instant revision petition 18.11.2009 passed by the learned hereby the appeal filed by the the judgment dated 31.03.2009, Faridabad, was set aside. e year 2010 and notice is yet to be sheet(s) reveal(s) that vide order n was dismissed in default by the ccount of non-appearance on behalf order dated 17.03.2011, the present original number. Thereafter, vide was adjourned sine die by the equests for adjournment by learned 2025, when this case was listed for ssed by a co-ordinate Bench of this ition rned the 009, o be rder the half vide the rned for this RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.27 18:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-3937-20 3. received wh received bac 4. the petitione pendency of more than 1 no attempt h new counse interested in 5. with liberty period of 0 6. 23.04.2026 rishu 2010 (O&M) -2- “As reported by the Advocate, who was represent informed through e-mail. However, said Mr. C.B. expired. In these circumstances, petition be sent to the petition 16.02.2026.” Pursuant thereto, office report ed which indicates that notice issue ed back unserved with the report ‘not r In view of the aforesaid premis titioner would be a futile exercise. It a ncy of the present revision petition be 16 years, the petitioner has lost in empt has been made by him to conta ounsel. It is, therefore, clear that th ted in pursuing the present matter. Be that as it may, the instant re iberty to the petitioner to move an ap 06 weeks from today for reviving t Pending application(s), if any, s 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable the Registry, Mr. C.B. Goel, senting the petitioner has been C.B. Goel, Advocate has already ces, let notice of this revision itioner as well as respondent for report dated 16.04.2026 has been issued to the petitioner has been not residing at the given address’. premise, issuance of fresh notice to se. It appears that due to sheer long before this Court for a period of lost interest in pursuing the same, as contact his counsel or to engage a that the petitioner is not seriously revision petition is disposed of, an appropriate application within a iving the same, if so, advised. any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No el, en dy on for een een e to long d of e, as ge a usly in a RISHU KATARIA 2026.04.27 18:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.